Omorose Panya
Fighting Fefnir
I can't help you if you can't see it. Maybe you should go back and quote some s**t so I can make sure you're paying attention, huh?
You are the only one who needs to support your claims. If you can't do that, then don't make them.
I made no claim, ********. I challenged yours. I have no burden of proof. You do.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
The question you posed is irrelevant, therefor I feel no need to answer it. In fact, in the context, it may very well be rhetorical.
If I am asking you to answer it, then it is obviously mot rhetorical.
Because it being rhetorical is more important than it being ******** irrelevant? Rhetorical or not, it is absolutely pointless as a question.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
Because you disavowed a possible course of action for the coach. That's the thing about hypothetical situations: they have more than one answer.
I disavowed which possible course of action?
That the coach could be merciful. I said this already.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
Check your math, you asked for the same thing twice. Therefor, two quotes.
Brilliant deduction.
You didn't pick up the mistake when you wrote it, tard. That puts me firmly above you in deductive reasoning.
Quote:
That isn't my first post, in case you're hunting for that. And read what I was responding to. I was providing an example, which is not considered off-topic. Furthermore, how does it contradict my initial point?
I'm not hunting for your first post. And how can I read what you were responding to when you REMOVE EVERYTHING BEFORE THE ONE SPECIFIC LINE YOU'RE ADDRESSING?!
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
Bolded the change of subject.
I didn't change the subject. I said that I had said the wrong thing. Besides, that conversation was no longer about the scenario I proposed. My post to Setar (the one you quoted) was about getting kicked off a team. You totally started our current conversation.
You didn't say the wrong thing, you up and ******** changed the subject. It WAS about the scenario you proposed, flawed as it was. I may have replied to start our interaction, but you started the totally off topic and different conversation between us with an unneeded subject change.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
See above quote, "original topic", where you made up the hypothetical situation.
I thought you were talking about the OP.
Now you need to explain to me how it is illogical. You did that below.
Good to see you can actually read.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
You've completely disavowed the coach's full range of options, locking him into one course of action rather than a range, which a normal person would have. Invalid by absolutes.
When did I do that? I said that coaches cannot enforce something that is not outlined in the contract (implying that she student never agreed to it). If that is illogical then the system itself is illogical.
You gave the absolute that the player/s must either be thrown off the team or not. I would point up, but again, you get rid of context when you quote, so look in my last post, labeled 'original topic for your words. You said in clarification that she must, by school rules, sign the contract (though this isn't universal) and that the contract included a no drinking rule. This doesn't include the coach's option to suspend the girls for a game or two in punishment.
What you're saying there has nothing to do with what was said by me before AND by you.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
Establishing that badmouthing a coach on Facebook is illegal, which is what you're implying.
I never once implied that.
Except where you likened it to underage drinking, which is illegal. Several times.
Fighting Fefnir
Where did I specify Federal law?
Strike out federal. No law. There. Was that irrelevant nitpick worth it?
No, because law in general is irrelevant. You think I'm referring only to the legal ramifications, but this is only in response to your comparison of underage drinking and posting things on Facebook.
Quote:
Once again, you are working under the assumption that schools cannot have their own rules which is not the case.
Not at all. You just didn't get that I was talking about your comparison.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
And throwing kids off a team for badmouthing them on Facebook is somehow against the rules of the school even though it wasn't established as such?
1) You didn't acknowledge the point.
Your point is invalid if badmouthing people on Facebook isn't illegal.
Quote:
2) Why are you assuming that it wasn't established as such?
Because it wasn't, ********.
Quote:
Once again, students are generally not allowed to play on these sports teams without signing a contract.
Generalization. I already have given an example that I know is true from first hand experience that proves this is not an absolute like you're saying it is.
Quote:
That's probably a state rule, not an individual school rule.
Maybe you should look it the ******** up then? Again, you bring up LAWS to support a bad theory. Why do you think laws keep coming up? BECAUSE YOU BRING IT UP, DUMBSHIT.
Quote:
That implies that the student agrees to the rules, which were assumedly outlined in the contract. If the student did not agree to them, then he or she is not liable. However, if he or she did (which is implied by his or her team status), then he or she must follow the rules and the school is allowed to punish them accordingly.
A couple of things wrong with this. Some schools do not require players to sign a contract, the contracts will vary among coaches, it's not a state law, and the school is not the one punishing the player here, the coach is.
The basis is wrong, and it's all speculation because you can't prove it has to be this way.
Quote:
Example: There is no federal or state or district law (that I am aware of. Feel free to post a link to the amendment that invalidates my statement) that forbids students from going on FB, Myspace, Twitter, etc., at school, yet most public grade schools (in America) deny access to them.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
Red herring. We aren't debating Federal laws about website access, but what is said on those websites about the school.
It doesn't matter. Once again, you keep implying that schools cannot have their own rules. You're implying that by stating and restating the legal status of team rules. "It is not illegal to badmouth a coach." So what? It does not need to be written in any lawbook because schools have their own private rules. The example I gave merely illustrates my point.
Your point has no ******** merit because it's a ******** red herring.
Quote:
Why is this so hard for you guys to grasp?
For the same reason it's hard to grasp clouds with your bare hands. Your stance keeps shifting around and has little substance.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
It may not be required by the school to sign said contract.
Then the school cannot kick the student off the team. Understand that the studente in question need to agree to the terms.
Then stop saying that all schools must because it is a state law! ********...
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
My soccer coach gave us a contract to sign that had nothing to do with a school stipulation. Whether or not it's a school rule is also entirely irrelevant to the consequences of said stipulation, and the coach's options.
Once again, if it is not in the contract then you don't have to do it. You never agreed to it.
Reread that. I was illustrating my point that not all schools require a contract and that it is the COACH'S responsibility to deal with that contract.
Quote:
You did when you said:
"This also doesn't limit the free speech of the player."
Which implies that speech is not already limited.
No, I implied that it was not further reduced beyond reasonable standards.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
You said you weren't referring to off the field conduct when talking about posting something online?
You're starting to fry my brain.
Keep up then, b***h. LRN2COMPREHESION
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
That's what the OP is about, and what you and Setar were debating. Yes you did.
Skim through my posts from the beginning.
Because surely you aren't doubting my ability to understand your bullshit points the first time I read through, right?
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
Your hypothetical is about posting something online, off the field. The OP you were debating is about posting things on Facebook, off the field. Rules of sportsmanship do not apply off the field in your definition, the one you linked.
Sportsmanship was
one thing I mentioned. That was specifically about badmouthing the
judges to their faces. I never applied sportsmanship to anything else so I'd appreciate if you stop acting like I did.
Except you ******** did. you applied it to dealing with people outside of sports fields, like it should be a way of life.
Quote:
My hypothetical situation was not about sportsmanship. It was about giving coaches reason to believe that their team members were not following the rules.
Which is an invalid hypothetical because you only gave him two options when in reality there were more. It's called a false dilemma.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
Since when were you talking about judges, and what do judges have to do with online posting, like the rest of the debate has been?
Since you jumped into the conversation?
Oh yes, EXACTLY WHERE I TOLD YOU THAT YOU UP AND RANDOMLY CHANGED SUBJECTS, YOU SAY THAT YOU CHANGED SUBJECTS. Way to go, ********. LRN2CONSISTENCY
Quote:
You haven't been paying attention at all.
Oh really? How did you arrive at that, since you, in the last sentence here, just said that was the START of this line of conversation. If that's the start, I've been here the whole ******** time, dumbass.
Quote:
I said:
"I should clarify. I mean during meets and competitions and badmouthing the judges."
That was my first post to you, which implies that you haven't been paying attention since the beginning.
Your clarification CHANGED THE WHOLE SUBJECT. It's not a clarification, it's covering your a**.
Quote:
The comment you responded to was:
Me: "Yeah, and? There's a big difference between badmouthing a coach to his/her face and snorting a line, but both will get you kicked off the team."
WHICH IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ******** LINE OF THOUGHT.
Quote:
Which was illustrating the point that dissimilar actions can have similar or the same punishment. Setar seems to disagree though common sense disagrees with him.
WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU "CLARIFIED".
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
Wrong. If you look RIGHT ABOVE HERE, IN YOUR LAST POST, you said that the school may have a rule pertaining to forcing people to sign contracts with the coaches. The contract has the sportsmanship stipulation. Unfortunately, Sportsmanship only applies on the field by your definition, therefor the whole thing was pointless.
Okay. But I never said that the administration (e.g. teachers, vice principal) has to do with sportsmanship.
BULLSHIT. You said right above that the school HAS TO because of state laws (not true, but what you said nonetheless). THAT MEANS THE ADMINISTRATION.
Quote:
When you said:
"No where in there does it say 'coach' or 'school' or 'administration'."
You implied that I said something about the admin.
BECAUSE YOU DID, RIGHT IN THIS ******** POST REPLYING TO ME.
Quote:
I looked at the quoted you mentioned. By "last post," I don't know if you mean the last post I submitted or the last thing you quoted
("Since when were you talking about judges..." wink . Either way, I see nothing about administration being part of sportsmanship.
YOU'VE BEEN SAYING THE SCHOOL HAS TO PUNISH THE PLAYER BECAUSE THEY MADE THEM SIGN THE CONTRACT. READ YOUR OWN GOD DAMN POSTS.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
I understand the conversation, and I have been following it since the beginning.
You are a liar.
And you are a skilled bullshit artist. You can't even keep your opinions straight in the course of ONE POST. Probably works better for you when people can't read what you say, right?
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
You, however, are making things up so that you can avoid your points being ruled invalid or irrelevant.
When did I make anything up?
"State rules require players to sign a contract."
"School rules require players to sign a contract."
"You implied that free speech has no limits."
I could go on.
If you couldn't tell, my s**t has been in order from the beginning. You're the one who can't even keep your opinion straight in the same post.
Now, decide what the ******** view you want to debate from is, because you're bouncing from one idea to the next in order to try and get an 'advantage' over me.
